They said their design direction was no longer consistent with the EPEAT requirements,” Frisbee said. “They were important supporters and we are disappointed that they don’t want their products measured by this standard anymore.”

Frisbee told CIO Journal that the structure of Apple’s newest MacBook Pro with Retina display would have made it ineligible.

Apple was involved in creating the standard and have made a point of how they designing for recycling ( http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling .) Is this the result of Jobs no longer being CEO? Anyway, a sad step backwards. Hope they will do a second u-turn soon.

As a result the City of San Francisco will no longer be able to buy Apple products nor will many other large institutions. Also, most collages either require or give heavy preference to EPEAT certified products.

Well, I don't see the link with the disappearance of Jobs. Even before taking into consideration recycling, the impossibility to change batteries is already a big no no for heavy users or users who keep stuff for a long time, both of which are more "ecological" than throwing away your "old" laptop because there is a shinier one available.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Quoting cmf (Thread starter):“If the battery is glued to the case it means you can’t recycle the case and you can’t recycle the battery,”

It is all based on this assumption, which is actually not true, of course.

Of course the battery can be separated from the top case. But since it is a fixed assumption in the current EPEAT regulations that it was impossible to unstick glued components (regardless whether that is actually true in any particular case), the Retina MacBook Pro would not be in compliance.

My prediction: Apple will demonstrate how they are separating the battery from the aluminium case during battery service, the EPEAT regulations will eventually be qualified according to the type of glue and the required force and tools and another storm in a teacup will be over.

Battery service for the machine involves replacement of the top case complete with the batteries, with the swapped-out top case being sent back to Apple where the batteries are quite certainly removed and replaced and the top case ends up in the next machine to be serviced.

One should obviously not use sharp, metallic tools to unstick the batteries, but before someone makes a proper attempt to remove them and actually fails at it, I don't really take these claims at face value.

The shrillness of these claims (just like others before) seems more connected with Apple's rapid ascent in the markets than with any actual problems.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):Of course the battery can be separated from the top case. But since it is a fixed assumption in the current EPEAT regulations that it was impossible to unstick glued components (regardless whether that is actually true in any particular case), the Retina MacBook Pro would not be in compliance.

It is not that it is impossible. It is that it is too hard. The standard require easy disassembling.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):One should obviously not use sharp, metallic tools to unstick the batteries, but before someone makes a proper attempt to remove them and actually fails at it, I don't really take these claims at face value.

This has nothing to do with how ifixit did it. It is about how much extra time it takes to heat up the glue to make it unstuck. You need to stop using that bad example and focus on how it is done.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):The shrillness of these claims (just like others before) seems more connected with Apple's rapid ascent in the markets than with any actual problems.

Quoting cmf (Reply 4):It is not that it is impossible. It is that it is too hard. The standard require easy disassembling.

Their judgment nowhere notices how hard it actually is. They apparently make their judgment entirely theoretically on the presence of glue without actually looking at the facts of the matter.

Quoting cmf (Reply 4):This has nothing to do with how ifixit did it. It is about how much extra time it takes to heat up the glue to make it unstuck. You need to stop using that bad example and focus on how it is done.

Please show me any claims made on the basis of someone actually looking at the actual facts and we can talk.

As long as it's all nothing more than just "Oh, there's glue – everybody knows that glue can never, ever be loosened again!", it can't be taken seriously.

There is no doubt that the onus is on Apple to demonstrate how their design can still be recycled even so, but the throwing up of hands and the shrill wailing all around is just ridiculous as long as it is not based on facts but on purely theoretical presumptions.

I also can't swap the clutch in any semi-recent car by myself any more. Technology advances, and along with all the growing benefits of more advanced technology it also tends to grow out of reach of layman tinkerers eventually.

For any actual user, there is exactly zero difference to the previous models in how they get the battery exchanged: They have Apple do it for them. And done.

The Retina MacBook Pro is the technologically most advanced notebook you can buy, and it goes all out to deliver extreme portability and extreme performance at the same time.

Apple had to choose an unusual approach in the mechanical design to get there, but for the actual user there is zero difference regarding the battery relative to its predecessors, and it is yet to be examined whether recycling is actually an issue there.

Apple takes ownership of that as well, by the way: You can hand not just any Apple product to them for recycling at no cost, but even any computer at all.

Not just by considering the very obvious fact that properly selected glue can of course be loosened again but also by remembering that the upper shell including the keyboard is the most expensive mechanical part of the machine to manufacture one might actually hesitate for a moment before immediately launching into full-blown fatwah mode yet again.

Given that Apple is putting far more effort into their designs to exactly make them as recyclable as possible, I think one should give them a tiny little bit of credit here: They are the only computer manufacturer on the planet who's banned brominated flame retardants, PVC and various other toxic substances from their entire product line. They're using very little plastic any more, but primarily glass and fully recyclable metals in their casings, including in the Retina MacBook Pro.

It is very clear that there is an industry-wide embarrassment about the very poor state of recyclability and avoidance of toxic substances from all other manufacturers, and that there are all kinds of incentives to try diverting attention away from that.

On the other hand it is completely valid to subject Apple to particularly high standards, since they are de facto the reference computer manufacturer (not least exemplified by exactly this new machine).

But the widespread lack of perspective in most of these accusations is a bit poor for the presumably elevated demands being made at the same time, don't you all think?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):As long as it's all nothing more than just "Oh, there's glue – everybody knows that glue can never, ever be loosened again!", it can't be taken seriously.

No-one but you make the claim of "can never be loosened again" By now one must wonder why you go to that extreme when you have repeatedly been told that it is about how long time it takes to make the glue loosen up enough, i.e. it is possible but because of the amount work it is not realistic.

Anyone who have worked with glue knows it requires a lot more time.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):There is no doubt that the onus is on Apple to demonstrate how their design can still be recycled even so, but the throwing up of hands and the shrill wailing all around is just ridiculous as long as it is not based on facts but on purely theoretical presumptions.

By withdrawing from EPEAT they have made it clear it is at least one step backwards.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):Given that Apple is putting far more effort into their designs to exactly make them as recyclable as possible, I think one should give them a tiny little bit of credit here: They are the only computer manufacturer on the planet who's banned brominated flame retardants, PVC and various other toxic substances from their entire product line. They're using very little plastic any more, but primarily glass and fully recyclable metals in their casings, including in the Retina MacBook Pro.

They clearly have not made the latest models as recyclable as possible. If withdrawing from EPEAT isn't clear about that when you're wearing tinted glasses.

Considering how much they have done up to the iPod 3 new it is amazing they are taking these backwards step. They have amazing designers and they are spending money on manufacturing. Why the reversal? Especially since this means many large institutions can no longer purchase Apple products.

Quoting cmf (Reply 7):They have amazing designers and they are spending money on manufacturing. Why the reversal? Especially since this means many large institutions can no longer purchase Apple products.

Allows them close down the entire thing to prevent people from fixing it themselves and force them into an Apple care type of deal or at the very least make them seek out aproved repairshops with the corresponding price hike.

Or worst case scenario, to make them buy a new one when it breaks down.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 8): It is actually pretty simple. But Apple could start a nuclear war tomorrow, and Klaus would praise it as efficient means to battle overpopulation.

It is pretty clear

I'm looking forward to hear him defend the switch to a 19 pin connector on the next iPhone, etc, after his suggestion it should be the standard in cars because it is the perfect connector.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 9):Allows them close down the entire thing to prevent people from fixing it themselves and force them into an Apple care type of deal or at the very least make them seek out aproved repairshops with the corresponding price hike.

Or worst case scenario, to make them buy a new one when it breaks down.

Whatever the reason, Apple wins.

That is part of it but I think making them as small and light as technically possible is a bigger part. I just think they have taken it one step too far.

But it is the kind of decisions that make people change opinion. Apple have had extremely loyal supporters, rightfully so. But there start to be objections about how they lock in people, design for their profit instead of customer need. It isn't much yet but it is increasing fast (I'd say faster than Apple's computer market share ) and it is something they should take care of now, before it becomes significant. They do great products and there certainly is a need for them. Hate to see them go down to where they were before Jobs came back.

Quoting cmf (Reply 7):No-one but you make the claim of "can never be loosened again" By now one must wonder why you go to that extreme when you have repeatedly been told that it is about how long time it takes to make the glue loosen up enough, i.e. it is possible but because of the amount work it is not realistic.

Anyone who have worked with glue knows it requires a lot more time.

That is a gross oversimplification.

Nowadays even a hobbyist has a wide array of very different kinds of glue at his disposal, and a manufacturer on the scale of Apple can effectively customize almost every imaginable aspect of a glue to their precise requirements.

One of these requirements rather obviously is that it needs to be removable during battery replacement and recycling. Easy removal is a standard property of certain industrial glues.

Nobody seems to have bothered to actually check the properties of the glue Apple has used here. Instead, the issue gets the usual hysterical storm in a teacup treatment.

Totally denying these clearly visible points does not help your argument in any way.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):That is part of it but I think making them as small and light as technically possible is a bigger part.

Bingo!

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):I just think they have taken it one step too far.

For what? To fit into the rigid grid of long-fixed requirements of EPEAT? Sure. Even their management admits that those criteria are somewhat outdated and in need of an update, but of course acknowledging that would really put a damper on all the artificial hysteria, so why bother?

There are effectively these main points which have a certain relevance to the topic:

• Unauthorized repairs have become more difficult:

Okay, but when I spend serious money on a high-end machine like that, handing it over to somebody who is not qualified or equipped to actually deal with it sounds like a really bad idea anyway, particularly in sight of largely free support through the Apple Stores.

If that is a priority, there are still the "classic" MacBook Pros with more opportunities for tinkering (at your own risk).

Authorized repairability is completely unchanged.

So for most users: No actual change relative to previous models.

• Battery replacement must be done by Apple:

Just as it has been for quite a few years by now already, with no major problems. The increased lifespan of the integrated batteries seems to be panning out as well.

And for my older MacBook Pro the self-replaceable battery cost me €129 as well – as much as the integrated one costs to replace on a newer model including the exchange service (the battery in the Retina MBP is more expensive, but that corresponds to its much higher capacity).

Quoting mham001 (Reply 11):That's right, because exchanging our own batteries is just too much for the average Joe.

Users who are happy to sacrifice portability, battery life and other qualities for the once-every-few-years capability to swap the batteries themselves are being served by plenty of suppliers in the market.

Apple has chosen not to do that any more a few years ago and to prioritize portability, battery life and reliability instead. And given their sustained growth especially in the notebook market and their sustained top-notch user satisfaction rates, it seems they've got it right: For at least most of their users this is not a real issue.

I've got an older MacBook Pro with a swappable battery myself and I would instead have preferred longer battery life, lower weight and diminished bulk as well.

For all users: No actual change relative to previous models.

• Recycling:

When the machine is done, you give it to Apple to have it recycled or to another competent recycling provider.

The machine contains primarily highly recyclable materials (predominantly Aluminium) and is free of various toxic substances which are still prevalent in all other brands.

For all users: No actual change relative to previous models.

The whole artificial hysteria about all this boils down to exactly one actually remaining issue:

Apple should explain how to separate the batteries from the Unibody top case to support external recyclers. Given that the product life cycle has barely started, this is not by far the most pressing matter, but unless it's really easy in actual practice (which nobody has bothered to actually check yet, apparently!), they might drop some hints.

And regarding the gigantic mountain of sustainability problems across the entire IT industry the knee-jerk reaction to a marginal change in manufacturing of one of Apple's machines is utterly absurd, particularly since this machine's environmental qualities are head and shoulders above almost every product from almost every other manufacturer worldwide at this point.

This is yet another example of people completely losing all their common sense and logical reasoning as soon as the pawlowian key stimulus Apple turns up anywhere. Which makes ad-dependent journalists particularly trigger-happy when the name turns up anywhere, perspective or proper research be damned.

And the near-total lack of perspective can be observed in such a.net threads just as well:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 8): It is actually pretty simple. But Apple could start a nuclear war tomorrow, and Klaus would praise it as efficient means to battle overpopulation.

I'm looking forward to hear him defend the switch to a 19 pin connector on the next iPhone, etc, after his suggestion it should be the standard in cars because it is the perfect connector.

How about looking behind the headlines and examining the actual facts a little bit closer before (or maybe even instead of) resorting to reflexive knee-jerk reactions as those we observe here yet again?

Or is this just about congratulating each other for sharing the same superficial prejudices and wedging in the occasional ad-hominem slight as well? In that case, why bother with any of these pesky facts at all?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):Or is this just about congratulating each other for sharing the same superficial prejudices and wedging in the occasional ad-hominem slight as well? In that case, why bother with any of these pesky facts at all?

Here's the part I don't get: Apple helped establish EPEAT, it helped create the standards. So the "experts" (i.e Apple) in glue, batteries, and recycling, etc. knew what they were doing when the set the guidelines and requirements. Now they are simply withdrawing. If the change were really unimpactful to recycling and if they really cared anymore then they would work to change the criteria. They would demonstrate and prove how their changes would not affect things negatively. Perhaps even with the diligence of some posters here.

I personally think it is just simply cheaper to do it the way they are doing it now (and to meet the high spec design criteria of thinner, lighter, etc.) and the market and profit are just too great to pass up. The places that require an EPEAT cert do not cause much of an impact (to sales) at all, though it does appear to be a bit of a marketing blunder.

I am sure Apple will do just fine and profit from their changes.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Quoting tugger (Reply 15):Here's the part I don't get: Apple helped establish EPEAT, it helped create the standards. So the "experts" (i.e Apple) in glue, batteries, and recycling, etc. knew what they were doing when the set the guidelines and requirements. Now they are simply withdrawing. If the change were really unimpactful to recycling and if they really cared anymore then they would work to change the criteria. They would demonstrate and prove how their changes would not affect things negatively. Perhaps even with the diligence of some posters here.

This is about EPEAT's computer category. Had they pushed for such a change in that category beforehand, it would basically have amounted to letting half tof the cat out of the bag regarding the Retina MacBook Pro.

Even though they are known to manage expectations of product updates via controlled leaks on occasion, they tend to keep things as airtight as possible when it's about revving up for maximum impact of a completely new product such as this one, so I doubt they even considered such a leak in this case.

Their tactic is somewhat ugly, but I expect it will work for them:

• First they conduct their product presentation, exploiting every bit of surprise they can squeeze out of it.

• Then they ramp up the pressure on EPEAT to maximum by pulling all their products, thus substantially weakening its applicability.

• Then they push for an update to their criteria (which Apple is likely to benefit from more than any other manufacturer since they are far ahead in most environmental criteria through sustained heavy investment). EPEAT management has already halfway waved the white flag on that by conceding that the standards need updating.

• Then they'll re-introduce their products, likely leveraging their substantial lead in various of the (likely) new categories relative to the lagging competition to gain an even larger advantage.

It is definitely neither nice nor neat as tactics go, but it is very likely that they can pull it off with minimal damage to their own position – actually, they will net benefit from their large investments through the past years into power economy, recyclable enclosures, shrinking of excess packaging, elimination of various toxic substances across their entire lineup and so on. They already have a large head start there, and I would be very surprised if they wouldn't try to leverage it in this particular tactical situation.

They usually take the long view. If it hurts them in the short run but with a good chance of a big payoff in the end, that's what they'll do. They're not easy to scare, and in most cases they know pretty well what they're doing.

Quoting tugger (Reply 15):I personally think it is just simply cheaper to do it the way they are doing it now (and to meet the high spec design criteria of thinner, lighter, etc.) and the market and profit are just too great to pass up. The places that require an EPEAT cert do not cause much of an impact (to sales) at all, though it does appear to be a bit of a marketing blunder.

I am sure Apple will do just fine and profit from their changes.

Nope, it is substantially more expensive to do it this way; And they don't even charge their customers extra: The new machine costs effectively the same as the similar "classic" model when you get the same SSD for both. Battery replacement costs just moderately more than on the other machines for a much bigger battery, and the replacement method is substantially more costly for Apple:

It involves much more extensive disassembly of the machine, shipping of not just a battery, but of effectively the whole Unibody casing including keyboard and battery two ways, plus finally in their facilities actually replacing the battery in the old case and readying it for the next customer (likely recycling chassis which are not fit to be re-used).

This is much more expensive in total than just shipping a battery to the customer or to the local service provider.

Designing the machine this way is very clearly not for direct profits – but it is for indirect profits by creating a machine that's so attractive and satisfying for the actual users that it will sell very, very well (for its class) and also pave the way for their entire lineup (the 13" model is apparently already in the wings), distancing the competition so clearly that they will keep gaining market share where it really counts: At the upper end of the quality, price and particularly margin range of the computer market.

It is actually quite possible that they're making less of a profit on the new machine than on the "classic" ones at this point. But this is a strategic product, intended to live for quite a few years. Before long, the "classic" MacBook Pros will be dumped and the Retina models will take their place. If they could make them cheaper, that would probably already have happened.

I'm in product development myself (software and hardware). My exposure to glues has been relatively marginal so far, so I'm anything but an "expert", but it doesn't remotely take one for being aware of what's actually out there.

Though you quoted what I said you definitely missed part of what I was meaning, I should have been more complete in what I was saying: "cheaper/better"

Quoting tugger (Reply 15):to meet the high spec design criteria of thinner, lighter, etc.) and the market and profit are just too great to pass up.

It is not always about immediate cost (as you state) is about PROFITS and future profits and market share and beating others that are in the market are all about that. Microsoft will meet the same issues and decisions when they begin selling (and price) the Surface tablet. They will likely produce something very expensive and sell it for "less" in order to meet/beat the competitors and create a market so they can gain future profits (just as Apple did with the first iPad). Just because a process is more expensive does not mean that a company will not decide it is "cheaper/better in the long run" (and Apple are experts at doing this).

All corporations do this. Apple is ultimately no different.

And I do agree with you:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):Their tactic is somewhat ugly, but I expect it will work for them:

By the way, your voluminous posts are amazing.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):Nobody seems to have bothered to actually check the properties of the glue Apple has used here. Instead, the issue gets the usual hysterical storm in a teacup treatment.

Totally denying these clearly visible points does not help your argument in any way.

Obviously you have taken them time so why don't you tell us how apple is going around the limitations all other forms of glue have.

To remove glue you need to either apply an chemical that neutralize the stickiness or you can achieve it by changing temperature. Depending on what glue it is you may need to remove it.

Either of the above options take more time than removing a couple of screws. There is no way around it. This is why the people at the recycling plants are going nuts. They understand recycling. They work with it every day. They understand the options for separating components efficiently. They are the people who told me about this. It isn't based on ifixit. It is from the people who are designing and will run the large plants we are constructing. They are the professionals when it comes to recycling. They are the the people you should get your information from.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):For what? To fit into the rigid grid of long-fixed requirements of EPEAT? Sure. Even their management admits that those criteria are somewhat outdated and in need of an update, but of course acknowledging that would really put a damper on all the artificial hysteria, so why bother?

Every standard is ready for an update soon after it is accepted. But that is a different issue.

The issue is that Apple have created a design that makes recycling more difficult. There is no way around it. That they can't even live up to what they call an old standard makes it perfectly clear. Every new design should fly through the EPEAT requirements. Not stumble on them.

It is very clear that in the latest designs Apple have put less importance at the recycling stage of the product. They have prioritized other features. In regards to recycling this is a step backwards. There is no way around it.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):How about looking behind the headlines and examining the actual facts a little bit closer before (or maybe even instead of) resorting to reflexive knee-jerk reactions as those we observe here yet again?

Uh oh...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):Apple should explain how to separate the batteries from the Unibody top case to support external recyclers. Given that the product life cycle has barely started, this is not by far the most pressing matter, but unless it's really easy in actual practice (which nobody has bothered to actually check yet, apparently!),

Well, the one who "only reads the headlines" has read that some did try to do separate the battery and thus causing it to leak. And I understand it is not only the battery that can't be separated using standard tools.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):The machine contains primarily highly recyclable materials (predominantly Aluminium) and is free of various toxic substances which are still prevalent in all other brands.

Thats all nice and well but does not explain Apple's withdrawal from EPEAT. You point out some merits to distract from the real issue at hand which you call a "storm in a teacup" - which probably is why you respond to this "storm in a teacup" by lenghty replies.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):Apple has chosen not to do that any more a few years ago and to prioritize portability, battery life and reliability instead. And given their sustained growth especially in the notebook market and their sustained top-notch user satisfaction rates, it seems they've got it right: For at least most of their users this is not a real issue.

How you improve battery life and reliability by gluing batteries in and making the display difficult to recycle as well is beyond me. If anyone was under the impression that Apple computers were unreliable before it certainly wasn't you.

And speaking of "real issues": Two years ago you praised Apple for making "major progress on avoidance of toxic chemicals and recyclability: Apple" (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2274686/).
Now Apple steps back from that "major progress ", at least partially, but that's just a "storm in a teacup" and "not a real issue".
Besides, HP and Dell are computer manufacturers Greenpeace had ranked higher than Apple when it comes to environmental standards - even before Apple ditched EPEAT.

There is probably no other product category with shorter life-cycles than computer and cell phones. The shorter the life-cycle the more important recyclability gets. It is at least sad that Apple - one of the major players - took this step.

People will (are) raising holy hell about this, but as someone that simply wants a finished product with no upgrading or trashing: I could care less. As long as Apple makes (in my opinion) superior computers for my use, then I will use them. Weather they are EPEAT certified or not. Plus, it's not like they are not green; they still do some ecologically friendly things, not least accepting any make of computer for recycling. Apple is not going to become, overnight, a company that builds computers that are totally toxic. They will glue some components together, and they won't be approved by one of the ecological standards. They will, though, still be Energy Star, a ranking that I find to be quite important.

That is the mentality costing us billions in cleanup today. It made the products cheaper back then but it makes today's products more expensive. But hey, who cares about what happens tomorrow.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 20): Plus, it's not like they are not green; they still do some ecologically friendly things

Apple does a lot of great stuff. Makes it extra disappointing to see them go backwards by making recycling more difficult. Reducing toxicity is great but it doesn't green light landfill as EOL solution.

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):Obviously you have taken them time so why don't you tell us how apple is going around the limitations all other forms of glue have.

To remove glue you need to either apply an chemical that neutralize the stickiness or you can achieve it by changing temperature. Depending on what glue it is you may need to remove it.

No, these are not the only possibilities. The glue-to-component and the glue-to-chassis adhesion force can be designed to be sufficient to hold on during regular use, but to break clean off on the chassis side (at least in most cases) when directed force is applied (such as through a solid, wide plastic spatula), The distribution, amount and type of glue all play a role there, and it is likely that they designed it exactly that way to facilitate their own battery servicing.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19):Well, the one who "only reads the headlines" has read that some did try to do separate the battery and thus causing it to leak.

That's the first I hear of this. Where's the link?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19):Besides, HP and Dell are computer manufacturers Greenpeace had ranked higher than Apple when it comes to environmental standards - even before Apple ditched EPEAT.

Greenpeace applies laughably distorted and lopsided "standards" in their IT "rankings". They have zero credibility there. They shot their own foot off when they ultimately admitted that they distorted their rankings for maximum PR impact. Which – of course – just required Apple to come out looking particularly bad, despite them in actual fact being far ahead of their competition in pretty much every criterion – except in one: Promising all kinds of things for the indefinite future. That's where the others were "better". And that was all Greenpeace effectively used for their ranking.

Quoting Apple:We’ve recently heard from many loyal Apple customers who were disappointed to learn that we had removed our products from the EPEAT rating system. I recognize that this was a mistake. Starting today, all eligible Apple products are back on EPEAT.

It’s important to know that our commitment to protecting the environment has never changed, and today it is as strong as ever. Apple makes the most environmentally responsible products in our industry. In fact, our engineering teams have worked incredibly hard over the years to make our products even more environmentally friendly, and much of our progress has come in areas not yet measured by EPEAT.

Quoting EPEAT:We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development. The outcome must reward new directions for both design and sustainability, simultaneously supporting the environment and the market for all manufacturers’ elegant and high-performance products.

An interesting question for EPEAT is how to reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards that are fixed at a point in time. Diverse goals, optional points awarded for innovations not yet described, and flexibility within specified parameters to make this happen are all on the table in EPEAT stakeholder discussions. And of course, timely standards development, as with newly created Imaging Equipment and Television standards, and the current refresh of the PC/Display standard, is critical as well.

Looks like the scenario I had described above is playing out a bit more quickly than expected...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 22):No, these are not the only possibilities. The glue-to-component and the glue-to-chassis adhesion force can be designed to be sufficient to hold on during regular use, but to break clean off on the chassis side (at least in most cases) when directed force is applied (such as through a solid, wide plastic spatula), The distribution, amount and type of glue all play a role there, and it is likely that they designed it exactly that way to facilitate their own battery servicing.

In other words. You have no idea. But if what you say actually was true ifixit would have had a much easier time. First time I'm using what ifixit did.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 22):Apple has just re-submitted all their products to EPEAT they had yanked before:

Glad they are making a u-turn here. Hope they will do that about recycling too. Of course it will not happen until next version.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):Technology advances, and along with all the growing benefits of more advanced technology it also tends to grow out of reach of layman tinkerers eventually.

It's partly true, but that's conveniently forgetting that Apple and all the other electronics manufacturers go the extra mile to design products that are out of reach of said weekend tinkerer with a set of precision screwdrivers and a soldering iron...

The 'built-in obsolescence' trend is a handy way for Apple et al. to have the average consumer go to their favorite Apple store for something as menial as a battery change, you know, right after the warranty period ends.
There is no amount of technology advance that needs to prevent anyone from changing the battery on a phone.

It also allows to make sure that cool looking new gadget you bought will not survive too long after it's younger brother is born.
Oh, damn, my iPhone N just broke down and since I can't fix it. Oh well, I guess I'll just go buy an iPhone N+1 then...

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...

25 Klaus
: I just gave you a pretty detailed scenario of what can actually be done in the real world to deal with glued components. It's standard state of the a

26 Braniff747SP
: Apple's back on board EPEAT. A letter from Bob Mansfield: http://www.apple.com/environment/letter-to-customers/ I could care less about Apple leaving

27 NoUFO
: Yeah, using heat or pliers would have been much better. Klaus, if you need to make a "detailed plan" or lay out a "detailed scenario" on how to remov

28 cmf
: You first chastised everyone for not providing details about exactly how Apple has done it and then you suggest a poorly considered idea to dispute c

29 francoflier
: I thought I'd hit a nerve. No need to defend your cherished company, I did state that everyone was doing it. Apple not more, but certainly not less,